JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Both these writ petitions are directed against the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 17th. October, 1984, one at the instance of the grantee of a permit and the other at the instance of the Regional Transport Authority and since common question of fact arid law is involved they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The short question which arises for consideration in these two writ applications is as to what would be the true import and meaning of the expression such permit may be renewed for a limited period used in the proviso to Section 68F (I-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This arises for consideration in this case 00' the following circumstances: The Petitioner in O.J. C. No. 793 of 1985 who is opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 876 of 1985 had a permanent stage carriage permit for a period of three years with effect from 1983 on the route Cuttack to Ganjam which was to expire on 29-8-1983. In accordance with Section 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. an application for renewal was filed on 30th of April. 1983 and the permit-granting authority notified the same, as required u/s 57 (3) of the Act inviting objections. No objection to the said application was received by the permit-granting authority from any quarter but yet as no final order was passed on the same, the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 793 of 1985 moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 2419 of 1983 for a direction to dispose of the pending application filed u/s 58 (2) of the Act. By order dated 23rd. December 1983, this Court directed that the said application for renewal be disposed of by 15-1-1984. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order as no communication was received,from the permit granting authority with regard to the disposal of the application for renewal an application was filed in this Court for initiating a contempt proceeding which was registered as Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 6 of 1984. and it is in course of the said proceeding it was revealed that the application for renewal has been disposed of. Case No. 6 of 1984. and it is in course of the said proceeding it was revealed that the application for renewal has been disposed of. The contempt proceeding was thereafter dropped, but as the Petitioner did not receive a copy of the order purported to have been passed by the permit-granting authority on the application for renewal, he again approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 310 of 1984. That application was disposed of by this Court with a direction that the order be communicated to the person concerned and pursuant to the said' direction,' a copy of the order refusing renewal was communicated on 4-2-1984. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal registered as M.V. Appeal No. 2 of 1984. The Tribunal on perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the parties. set aside the order of refusal of renewal by his order dated. 12-4-1984 and remanded the matter to the permit-granting authority for re-disposal. After the matter came back on remand the R. T. A. again refused the prayer for renewal by their decision dated 14-8-1984. This order was again challenged before the Tribunal in M. V. Appeal No. 32 of 1984 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by his order dated 17-10-1984, which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition filed by the Regional Transport Authority ( O.J.C. No. 876 of 1985). It is this order of the Tribunal which is being impugned by both these Petitioners in the two writ applications. 3. It would be appropriate at this stage to note that a Scheme u/s 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act has been published under notification dated 29-4-1978 by the State transport Undertaking namely the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. Though objections have been received to the scheme u/s 68D of the Act and the same have been heard under Sub-section (2) of Section 68D, but final order has not been passed by the State Government by approving or modifying the scheme. During this interregnum therefore, provisions of Section 68-F govern the field of grant of permits. Though objections have been received to the scheme u/s 68D of the Act and the same have been heard under Sub-section (2) of Section 68D, but final order has not been passed by the State Government by approving or modifying the scheme. During this interregnum therefore, provisions of Section 68-F govern the field of grant of permits. The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the grounds on which the application for renewal has been refused by the R. T. A. are not sustainable in law and in view of the investment made by the applicant, his prayer for renewal should have been accorded. But in view of the notification u/s 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act and since there has been no application for the route in question by the State Transport Undertaking u/s 68F (lA) of the Act, the Tribunal held that the proviso to Sub-section (I-D) of Section 68-F would apply. By applying the said provision, he however, directed that the applicant pursuant to his application for renewal be granted a permanent stage-carriage permit for a limited period of one month and the same may be extended from time to time so long as final publication of the scheme under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act has not been made. The grievance of the Petitioner in O. I. C. No. 793 of 1985 is that such an order casts unnecessary hardship on the applicant to get his permit renewed every month and also it runs contrary to the spirit of the provision contained in Section 62 of the Act and therefore, the same should be clarified by this Court. The Regional Transport Authority, who has filed O.J.C. No. 876 of 1985 however, assails the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the provision of Section 68-F (l-D) has no application, since the State Transport Undertaking has been given permit over the route in question in accordance with Section 68-F (I-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The impugned older of the Tribunal disagreeing with the findings of the Regional Transport Authority and holding that the applicant is entitled to get renewal on merits has not been assailed before us by the Regional Transport Authority. 4. The impugned older of the Tribunal disagreeing with the findings of the Regional Transport Authority and holding that the applicant is entitled to get renewal on merits has not been assailed before us by the Regional Transport Authority. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal also we are satisfied that the said conclusion cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the same is passed on germane considerations. 5. The next question for consideration is as to the effect of a notification u/s 68-C of the Act and what should be the proper order in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been admitted by the counsel for parties that there has been a notification covering the route in question u/s 68 C of the Act. When a scheme is published u/s 68-C of the Act, no permit in respect of a route specified in the scheme cart be granted on renewed during the intervening period between the publication of the scheme and the publication of the approved scheme except a temporary permit to the State Transport Undertaking or failing that a temporary permit to any other person under Sub-section (I-C) of Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act. This is apparent from a combined reading of Section 68-C and Section 68-F of the Act. So far as an existing permit-holder is concerned however, be can get renewal of his permit for a limited period, as provided under the proviso to Section 68.F (1-0) of the Act Though the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Regional Transport Authority raised the contention that the State Transport Undertaking bad been given permit subsequent to the notification u/s 68-C as provided under Sub-section (I-A) of Section 68-F, he could not substantiate the same with any material and, in fact, the Tribunal has also so recorded in the impugned judgment. In the absence of any materials for the same we would also hold that the State Transport undertaking namely the O. S. R. T. C. has not made any application after publication of the scheme u/s 68-C for any temporary permit in respect of the route in question, nor any such permit has been issued in favour of the State Transport Undertaking. Consequently the application for renewal filed by the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 793 of 192 has to be considered in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (1-C) of Section 68-F. Sub-section (I-D) is extracted hereinbelow in extenso: Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (1-A) or Sub-section (I-C), no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between' the date of publication, u/s 68.C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any, person for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme: Provided that where the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area route or portion thereof specified in a scheme published u/s 68.C expires after such publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D. The aforesaid proviso permits renewal of any permit which expires after the publication of the scheme u/s 68-C for a limited period, but such renewal shall cease to be effective by operation of law on the publication of the approved scheme u/s 68-D, The provision contained in Section 57 as well as the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 58 regarding renewal of a permit equally applies to an application for renewal of permit under the proviso to Sub-section (1-D) of Section 68-F of the Act, The expression "for a limited period" used in the proviso to Sub-section (1-0) of Section 68-F would mean any period for which a renewal under Sub-section (2) of Section 58 is granted but subject to the publication of a notification of the approched scheme u/s 68-0 (3) of the Act. Even if a permit is renewed for a period u/s 58 (2) and during the continuance of the said period the approved scheme is published u/s 68-0 (3) of the Act than the renewal in question granted under Sub-section (2) of Section 58 ceases to have any effect on the date of such publication by operation of law. This in our view is the true and correct meaning and the power for exercising renewal. This in our view is the true and correct meaning and the power for exercising renewal. The appropriate order of the permit granting authority in such a case would be to grant renewal for a period of 3 years or 5 years as the case may be under Sub-section (2) of Section 58 subject to the condition that the renewal would automatically become ineffective in the event the "approved scheme" is published u/s 68-D (3) of the Act. 6. Both these writ applications are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations leaving it open for the permit granting authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance, with law and the observations made herein. We make no order as to costs. V. Gopalaswamy, J. 7. I agree.